9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) For Applicant (s) : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative ORDER Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The applicants filed this ROM application aggrieved by the CESTAT Order No. A/10792/2016 dated 31.08.2016 wherein the appeal of the applicant/appellant was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, keeping all the issues open. 3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that hearing in the matter took place on 23.08.2016 and they submitted written submissions within three days i.e. on 26.08.2016 and the order was issued on 31.08.2016 whereas their contentions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment, limitation etc. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority have not considered the matter on merits and have rejected the refund claim only on limitation without going into merits of the case. Further, it is alleged that the said claimant had not submitted any evidence whatsoever to prove that the service tax claimed as refund has been paid by the said claimant. It is also observed that the original adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority had no opportunity to examine the case law, now submitted by the appellant with regard to limitation as well as merits. Hence, we find that this matter has to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue and earlier case laws including the decisions of the Apex Court itself including the decision in the Honda Siel Power Products on which the applicant/ appellant has relied upon has held as follows:- 21 . This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
